add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

2200g/2400g: Hot or Not, what are your opinions?

Jersey.Devils

21 months ago

I was super hyped up to see these, and I have some mixed feelings (although I had very high expectations to begin with). Lets start with the 2400G: It's main competitor is the G4560 + gt 1030 combo, which is a 160-170$ combo because of current pricing. The 2400g has pretty good stock CPU performance (in between a 1400/1500x),although it doesn't OC very well (It'll OC to about 1500x stock levels of performance). That's nearly twice the multi threaded performance, although in games you wont notice it with a very low tier GPU, perhaps you would when you upgrade. Vega 11 is capable of playing most, if not all Esport titles at 60 FPS 1080P (To my knowledge), and does about 35 FPS in PUBG (Which isn't great, but it's playable, and still better than Xbox). The GT 1030 does outperform vega 11 by about 5-15% with stock clocks and average ram, although once you overclock them both the margins become slim. Power consumption is also very good, and the wraith stealth can handle it more than fine (80C max), although if you want to do some OCing while keeping your temps low you're probably going to want to pick up a Cryorig M9a or similar cooler. 2 "bonuses" you get are access to the AM4 platform which is supposed to last until 2020, and Freesync support, which is only a 10$ premium if you're picking up a new monitor for your PC. Overall, the 2400g is pretty good, and I'll be recommending it over G4560s/gt 1030s.

Now onto the 2200g: It doesn't stack up to the g4560/gt 1030 combo, it's not even all that close... But, it is 60% cheaper, while offering a better CPU for multi threaded tasks (on par with a R3 1200), and the vega 8 is 40% slower, so it's immediately clear that the 2200g is a price/performance king. You're going to struggle with some of the more demanding Esports titles (R6:S, Overwatch), and some of the AAA games may not be at playable levels of performance for you, but if you're only doing esports, you can get away just fine. Considering that it has haswell i5 levels of performance, with integrated graphics on par with a gtx 650 ti, it can more or less match used parts in price/performance, although the high DDR4 prices drag it down.

Disclaimers: The APU does use your DDR4 ram, so while 8GB may be enough in some games, it'll also choke you in others. Dual channel is also recommended, it'll significantly boost not only your Ryzen CPU performance, but also the Vega 11 graphics performance. Ram prices are high right now, so you may see a price difference between the different speeds, so I'd recommend trying to wait for a sale (I picked up my 16GB 2x8 3000MHz kit for only 130$ just a couple months ago). If you can't get ahold of any higher speed ram, you might try overclocking your lower speed ram, sometimes you can get it almost as high!

I can't wait to hear your opinions on these APUs!

Comments

  • 21 months ago
  • 6 points

Hot or Not, what are your opinions?

I think a refurbished business class computer with windows key and i5-2400 / i5-3470 / i3-4320 class CPU with a GT 1030 / RX 550 is still going to hold the value crown for gamers on a budget.

Unfortunately, there are costs associated with building "new" right now that kill any attempt at this market. Windows licence, and right now, DDR4.

Buy Windows home, a 2400G, and the cheapest AM4 motherboard available, and we've already spent the cost of a refurb + GT 1030. Still have to buy RAM, Case, drive, PSU.

If AMD really wants to turn up the sizzle factor on APU's, they need to work with Microsoft on licensing deals to get win10 home bungled with the APU for like $30-40.

I honestly don't understand why nobody in the "builder" industry has figured out some way to extend bulk/OEM pricing of windows to system builders. Either the motherboard manufactures or CPU manufactures should be fighting to incorporate this as a value-add.

These companies do everything else in their power to prevent old hardware from competing with new hardware, yet somehow, they have let this opportunity slip through the cracks, and we're left with refurbs still being the better deal due to windows licencing costs.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

BINGO!

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree with this pretty much fully. The only thing that would bring value back to the APU side over the business class refurb would be the ability to upgrade from there pretty easily in the future. Really, which is the better route to take really would depend on what the end consumer wanted out of it and for how long.

  • 21 months ago
  • 4 points

Hot.

No, but for real, seeing on-die graphics performance come close to dedicated card performance is nice to see and a trend that I look forward to seeing more of.

I suggest checking out this review of the 2200G and the 2400G. They both seem like great options for a budget gaming build. And, given a decent aftermarket cooler, will likely be able to OC quite well too.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8520/amd-ryzen-3-2200g-5-2400g-review/index.html

It's just nice to see people that would otherwise have to wait to build (due to the GPU spikes) having a decent route to take in the interim.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

I fell love in with APU's when I built my first system a little over a year ago and realized it could run Overwatch and Rocket league easily on medium settings. Seeing the new offerings from AMD and how cheap they are make me a little upset I went Intel with my new system.

  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

Hot. The iGpu over a 2400G is like an RX 550. So is great.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't understand why they don't make a 95w SKU with Vega 14 or however many compute units they can squeeze into 95w TDP (or is power and heat not the limiting factor?). Vega 14 would be AMAZING, but I see why they wouldn't want to do it as it would hurt RX460 sales.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't understand why they don't make a 95w SKU with Vega 14 or however many compute units they can squeeze into 95w TDP (or is power and heat not the limiting factor?).

Because those Zen APUs are intended for low budget PCs.

Otherwise the price would be way higher, and that wasn't the main goal of AMD. ;)

Here is a review: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-5-2400G-and-Ryzen-3-2200G-Review-Return-APU

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

mabye an R7 version of it? but with 4 cores? from what Ive seen in reviewers videos, there isn't much room to stuff more than 4 cores, 8 threads and a good iGPU

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

If you want a weaker version of it, there is always the older APUs on AM4 such as the A8-9600, but they dont perform very well...

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, the R7 should be worse than the Vega 11.

The R7 on an A10-9800 has 4 CPU cores and 8 GPU cores running at 1108Mhz.

The 2400G has also 4 CPU cores but hyper-threaded and the GPU has 11 GPU cores that are running at 1250Mhz.

And i guess internal Vega optimizations should boost the performance even further.

Also the CPU has a greater base clock and a bit higher boost clock too.

It would be interesting to see how the R7 performs vs an Vega 8!

Lastly not forget that a Ryzen 1200 or Ryzen 1400 CPU is superior than a A10-9800.

So, normally the Ryzen 3 2200G and the Ryzen 5 2400G should outperform an A10-9800 on everything.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Oh! thanks for the link, not much time to surf for everything. lol

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

No worries they also did dual channel vs single channel benchmarks.

Don't bother with single channel 30%+ performance hit.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't want to speculate/design it, but it would be soooo cool. Honestly I'm disappointed with the performance, just look at Vega 8's performance vs the old Radeon R7. Not too much better. APUs used to actually be serious alternatives to low end gaming builds, I'm just not seeing as huge of a performance jump as I'd expect given how long it's been :-\

  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

in JayzTwoCents's(?) video he points out that by default the APU uses 512 megs of ram and max is 2 gigs with 2x8 sticks. Ram speed is also shown to increase speed a little.

  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

Actually, RAM speed and channel mode show pretty large differences in APU performance.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

yeah I tried to say that :/

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

These are the same parts as the mobile CPU so you are limited by what they can make work for low power usage.

Also being a budget part they use TIM not solder so you have to balance heat output with what a stock cooler can effectively dissipate.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

you have to balance heat output with what a stock cooler can effectively dissipate.

This really seems to be the crux of it.

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

They likely would have been better off sticking with 14nm LPE as the earlier parts for power and heat efficiency since the switch to LPP hasn't improved overclocking at all.

Or contracting Samsung to use 10nm/8nm.

Also doesn't spell good things for the upcoming refresh.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

Yeah, this is somewhat worrisome, and a strange decision (at least to the outside observer).

Also doesn't spell good things for the upcoming refresh.

Well, as of now I am reserving my opinion on it, and hoping for the best.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

and Freesync support,

The S and X support Freesync after there respective updates.

CPU performance is hit or miss depending on the workload because of the lower L3 cache.

Graphics performance is heavily reliant on both dual channal and fast RAM as well as having enough so you really want 16gb on them.

So you have several give and takes that really hurts them value wise.

2400G will cost more then a 1200/G4560+550/1030 since you need to purchase double the RAM quantity and spend more on it to get high speed. And it at best trades blows with them.

2200g trails those performance wise well costing nearly the same since it has the same downsides.

Best option right now is going to be a used R3 1200 which have been going for $75-85 used and a GTX 750ti/950/GT 1030/RX 550. You get better performance spend less and stay on a current platform.

If RAM prices were not so high and you were fine with lower frame rates or under 1080p resolution they would be a decent option, but with things the way they are they are as limiting as choosing a stand in card because of what it takes to build for best performance.

So Neither Hot or Not just Meh.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

R3 1200 for 75-85$ used? No way, where? A 85$ used 1200 would be great for budget builders, that's more or less the price of a G4560!

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

eBay.

Bunch of people were waiting on prices to drop and its only gotten worse so they are turning to Prebuilts since its the only place you can get mid range GPU now.

I would have snagged one but I caught a trashed PC with a Haswell I5 in it first.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm going to have to try to snipe one of those, I actually could use a media center PC, and I already have a few old GPUs laying around.

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

I would snag one before to many people figure out that paired with a graphics card it's still a better CPU then a 2200G.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/14.html

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

2400G will cost more then a 1200/G4560+550/1030 since you need to purchase double the RAM quantity and spend more on it to get high speed. And it at best trades blows with them.

You don't need to buy 16 GBs, 8 GBs is fine. Just increase the amount of RAM allocated to the APU in the BIOS. At the quality settings the 2400G can run, you won't need any more than 8 GBs. Besides, high-speed RAM isn't worth it even on an APU. Testing has shown that you only get a few extra FPS, and tbh that's not worth it considering how expensive kits of DDR4-3000 can be.

Besides that though, I do agree that the 2400G isn't quite worth it when you considering the price. I suspect AMD will lower it to $130-$140 in the future, which would make it a lot better.

  • 21 months ago
  • -1 points

You don't need to buy 16 GBs, 8 GBs is fine. Just increase the amount of RAM allocated to the APU in the BIOS. At the quality settings the 2400G can run, you won't need any more than 8 GBs.

So you take away 2gb dedicated to the graphics.

Take away the 1.5-2gb Windows uses.

How much is left for the game??? 4-4.5gb is easily used up these days even on E-Sport titles.

At the quality settings the 2400G can run, you won't need any more than 8 GBs. Besides, high-speed RAM isn't worth it even on an APU. Testing has shown that you only get a few extra FPS, and tbh that's not worth it considering how expensive kits of DDR4-3000 can be.

Well sorry to say that isnt what reviews are showing.

What we can quite clearly see here is that dropping down from 3200 to the official 2933 spec reduced the average frame rate by 6%. Then we saw a further 6% reduction going from 2933 down to 2666 and then 8% from 2666 to 2400. If you were to use DDR4-2400 memory in a dual-channel configuration you stand to lose up to 20% performance compared to what we've shown here.

Some of you suggested that you'd like to run these new Raven Ridge APUs with a single 8GB memory module as it is cheaper to do this at the moment. Given the results, I strongly recommend you stick to dual-channel memory. Here's a better graph for showing the real performance impact. Using DDR4-3200 memory you'll see a massive 33% reduction in frame rate with single channel memory and this figure increases as the memory speed is reduced. So, please stick with dual-channel operation.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1574-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-and-ryzen-3-2200g/page8.html

Many people expected that Raven Ridge wouldn't be as dependent on memory speeds as Summit Ridge due to the single CCX configuration.

Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. As we change memory speeds, the gap between Summit Ridge and Raven Ridge gets bigger, with Raven Ridge showing the larger performance loss. AMD's explanation is that due to the smaller cache size on Raven Ridge, the memory speeds matter more, which makes sense. Four cores and eight SMT units compete for access to L3, and whatever can't be stored stays on the memory.

Performance of the integrated graphics, which relies on system memory entirely, scales linearly with memory clocks, which is as expected. It's important to point out that the difference in performance between 2133 MHz and 3200 MHz is huge (30%), and faster memory can make the difference between "playable" and "slide-show."

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2400G_Vega_11/17.html

You really to get the kind of performance needed to make these competitive build for them so 16gb of 3200mhz+ RAM with as low a latency as possible.

A build with a discrete card you are correct however that is why I would always suggest going with a RX 550/GT 1030 since you can easily save a ton on RAM by dropping to 8gb which is workable with a discrete card.

  • 21 months ago
  • 0 points

So you take away 2gb dedicated to the graphics. Take away the 1.5-2gb Windows uses. How much is left for the game??? 4-4.5gb is easily used up these days even on E-Sport titles.

eSport titles can easily run on 4 GBs total system memory, i.e. Overwatch. Why? Because they're optimized for potato setups. I could run Paladins just fine on a mobile Phenom 2 chip with HD 5650 graphics for crying out loud.

Gaming overall can run comfortably on 8 GBs with a dedicated GPU unless you're trying to run particularly demanding games. Tacking on 2 GBs more might be a problem, but you could just stick to a happy medium of 1 GB. A lot of games try to leave headroom so that other programs can run at the same time, meaning an APU could take advantage of it. And I was able to game just fine with 1.25 GBs of VRAM at 1080p. I had to lower settings obviously, but that's the budget life.

Tbh though, if you're buying even a Raven Ridge APU to play Witcher 3, you may just want to save some more money and buy a proper GPU.

Well sorry to say that isnt what reviews are showing.

It depends on the title. Most of the titles this guy brings up show little benefit to increasing RAM speed. The ones that do show significant benefits still don't bring it up to the 60 FPS mark, meaning there's no point in investing in higher-clocked RAM. CS:GO being one exception, but unless you're playing on a 144 hz monitor, there's no practical benefits to that either.

The Witcher 3 sure as hell isn't optimized for integrated graphics, it was programmed specifically with high-end GPUs in mind, so of course you're going to see benefits from higher-clocked RAM. But if you're going to be playing Triple-A titles on an APU, then maybe you should stop spending $60 a piece on games, and save that money for an actual GPU.

You really to get the kind of performance needed to make these competitive build for them so 16gb of 3200mhz+ RAM with as low a latency as possible.

I mean yeah, if you're going to try to play Triple-A, so-taxing-you-need-a-1080 Ti games, then yeah, I could see buying higher-clocked RAM. But that's like trying to haul a lumbermill's product for the day with a Prius. But for what Raven Ridge can do, the R5 2400G just isn't worth it to me. The 2200G, however, cuts the mustard well enough that the performance uplift you get from spending almost twice as much make it a good value.

  • 21 months ago
  • -1 points

So you would knowingly sacrifice 30% or more performance just because "It's Good Enough"????

Gaming overall can run comfortably on 8 GBs with a dedicated GPU unless you're trying to run particularly demanding games. Tacking on 2 GBs more might be a problem, but you could just stick to a happy medium of 1 GB. A lot of games try to leave headroom so that other programs can run at the same time, meaning an APU could take advantage of it.

Space that is reserved by a title cannot be used by the system or VRAM so that isnt headroom.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

So you would knowingly sacrifice 30% or more performance just because "It's Good Enough"????

If you're referring to memory overclocking, then that's not sacrificing performance, that's just spending money wisely. Memory overclocking in a lot of titles doesn't even let you hit 60 FPS, so there's no point in spending the extra cash.

Space that is reserved by a title cannot be used by the system or VRAM so that isnt headroom.

You don't seem to understand what I said. I said games try and leave headroom, as in only allocate up to so much, so that background programs can run at the same time. That would be the definition of headroom.

  • 21 months ago
  • -1 points

I see both points of view in this argument.

1.) DDR4 3200 is needed and does make a fairly significant impact on many popular titles.

2.) 16GB of memory @ $200+ is ridiculous at this price point.

Conclusion: Elusivehawk wins because you'd have to be high on drugs to spend $200 on ram to make a crap card run 6% faster.

That's $120+ you could use for a real GPU or a better processor. If you just went with cheaper and slower DDR4 ram and a normal R5 1600. Plus you wouldn't be eating up 2GB of ram on the APU because the card you bought comes with it's own dedicated ram.

Sorry, I love the idea of APU's too, but only the 2200G even makes sense. Otherwise, you're wasting your money on a stepping stone processor.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Being able to play more demanding titles at 720p+ is really impressive for integrated graphics. Seeing the Vega iGPU go head to head against a budget discrete GPU is pretty incredible. The CPUs themselves being decent performers also helps a lot compared to older APUs with Bulldozer/Piledriver based designs.

I'd also be curious to see a dedicated box in the vein of a Gigabyte BRIX using a specialized cooling system to keep a Ryzen 2400G performing well in an extremely small form factor.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I already ordered it in the middle of school, I'm putting this in my new budget system

this will be amazing for budget gamer due to gpu's at ridiculous prices atm

this is the future of gaming so I would say HOT :)

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

You'll have to post your build on this community, I'm really excited to see some modern APU builds!

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

will do!

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Mostly hot.

Good solid CPU performance, an integrated GPU that blows competing Intel HD iGPU's out of the water, good bang for the buck. What's not to like? Particularly in these times of ridiculous pricing in the GPU market.

One thing though. My understanding is these are directly replacing the Ryzen 3 1200 and the Ryzen 5 1400. Is that correct?

My only disappointment, and I think it could be an issue for some potential buyers, is that they only support discrete graphics over 8 x PCIe lanes (and no SLI or Crossfire, although how often is that used these days?). If someone buys one intending to use the integrated Vega GPU as a stop gap, until GPU prices fall, they may be disappointed if their discrete GPU is limited in this way (even if it may not make a huge difference?)

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

No, Zen+ should have a R3 2200 and R5 2400, and although they wont have the graphics portion, they should be able to clock about 10% higher. So those are the successors, they should be coming this april.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Interesting. Pretty sure I've read that was the case, although I can't remember where now :) Won't be too long to wait anyway.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm super excited, this came out just in time for me to build a budget pc for a family member!!! When do you think it will be added to the pcpartpicker list of CPU's?

The reviews I've seen it appears to blow the integrated gpu of intel away at a cheaper price, whats not to love!

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

New products are normally added to this site within a few days! The Ryzen/Vega APUs blow any of the intel iGPUs away, they're a mile ahead.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks! I’m just getting ready to build my third pc, this one if for my dad and I’m 99% set on the new 2400g. Now if memory prices could just go down a bit!!!

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I have a question, is it correct to see the ryzen 5 2400g as a budget cpu? Because all the videos that I've seen are about how good it is with a gt 1030 but haven't seen videos with like a 1060, and if there are they're all in low so I can have a good idea on how it will run this combo

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

is it correct to see the ryzen 5 2400g as a budget cpu?

It's a budget CPU combined with a budget GPU.

all the videos that I've seen are about how good it is with a gt 1030

It's best compared against the 1030, as a 4560+1030 is the closest competitor in terms of price/performance.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

It's a mid range/budget CPU paired with a low budget GPU. It's performs similarly to a R5 1400 paired with a gt 1030. As far as price goes, the same amount of cash will buy you a G4560/gt 1030, so there's that.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I think that it's a great thing for the casual e-sport gamer, but not much else. It doesn't change the cost of the system build at all because the 2200g @ $99 dollars replaces the 1200 @ $105 and the 2400G replaces the 1500X @ $169 each. The difference is you're getting the GPU thrown in for free. So, I mean that's definitely a plus, but it's hardly a game changer.

If you plan to use a real GPU in the future the 2200G makes sense because it's cheaper than the 1200 it replaces and has the free GPU. However, the 2400G is absolutely pointless, because for $20 more dollars you can get a 1600 with 6 cores instead of 4 and you if you were gonna buy a real GPU anyway you just spent 6 core money on a 4 core CPU with a GPU you don't use.

I priced a ITX system with a 2400G and 16gb of DDR4 3200 (You need 3200 for GPU performance) and that system came to $800 without monitor/keyboard/mouse. It was $700 minus the Win10 copy, but customers that buy from me usually need a new copy.

I used the cheapest ITX board I could find @ ~99 dollars and a cheap $50 PSU with an 250GB SSD and a nice Fractal Core case.

ITX is the main appeal of these chips and the increased cost of ITX parts and DDR4 ram really puts a hamper on the pricing.

Sadly, you're not unaffected by the GPU craze because the memory prices are skyrocketing too.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

IS there any reviews comparing to the 1500X (processor power comparisons)?

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

AMD or one of their partners need to put this thing into a system the size of a Roku or Apple TV. Make the casing part of the heatsink if necessary to keep it cool.

Hell even if you make it a little bigger with a little 40mm fan this thing would be able to dominate the PC/media center/gaming console market.

That's what I think is the best part about these. Comparitively massive performance in such a small space.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

2400G=1500X at $170-190.

2200G=1200 at $99-130.

Problem is the older generation products still pull ahead in some workloads especially the 1500X.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Flip side of that is if you are you could have a 1600 instead of a 2400G for the same price as some retailers have it for.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

True but the benefits are only usable by those who are not using a graphics card, for those who are there is no benefit to these.

2400G at best trades blows with a 1500X at stock speeds making the 1500X the better buy for those who use discrete graphics equivalent performance at stock to the best a 2400G can achieve.

2200G is in a somewhat alright place since the lower scaling of the 1200 leaves them trading blows.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

They're even cheaper, the 1200 is normally 110$, this thing is 100$! You do give up some L3 cache, but it's not such a big deal...

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube